llvm dev - Oct 2015 - RFC: Introducing an LLVM Community Code of Conduct

While I'm replying to Renato here, that is mostly because there are too
many replies on this subject, and too many of them have wandered off into
other topics.

I want to specifically address the concerns with verbosity. For example:

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 3:52 AM Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
wrote:
> I also agree that some descriptions are too verbose, and trying to be
> exhaustive, whereas any list will be incomplete, we might just as well
> be short and meaningful.

And very relatedly:

> > - *Be careful in the words that you choose.* We are a community of
> > professionals, and we conduct ourselves professionally. Be kind to
> others.
> > Do not insult or put down other participants. Harassment and other
> > exclusionary behavior aren't acceptable.
>
> This sums up well. The rest is just outlining behaviours that occur
> with extremely low frequencies on this community, some of which I have
> never seen.
>
This is a *specific* thing that is called out time and again as important
to having an effective code of conduct in all of the research I have done
on the subject. Here is a really good, and fairly canonical source:

http://adainitiative.org/2014/02/18/howto-design-a-code-of-conduct-for-your-community/

This article gives a lot of the core reason why details are often extremely
important here.

Now, I understand that for many of you (in fact, I suspect for the
overwhelming majority of you!) these details aren't necessary. As I have
said before, the LLVM community has been very effectively keeping its
forums civil and polite for a long time. But I think we should consider
that having a code of conduct and having it be detailed might be important
for *others*.

People who have serious concerns about participating safely in a community
should have some way to be reassured about what is expected within our
community. A detailed and documented code of conduct is the best way I know
of to advertise that this is a safe and welcoming space. This isn't just a
hypothetical either. I personally struggled to feel safe within the LLVM
community many years ago, and I have had many people specifically call out
how excited they are to see even a *chance* that the LLVM community will
explicitly take a stance here.

Another (smaller) benefit that a detailed code of conduct can provide is a
reminder. While I try to behave to the best of my abilities, sometimes I
have needed a reminder to cool down a bit. I suspect others have had
similar experiences. Having some details can help us consider things that
we might not usually consider on a day-to-day basis.

So I am very strongly in favor of a reasonable amount of clear and detailed
wording. We could try to word smith a slightly more compact version, but I
think that we would have very minimal improvements without sacrificing the
goals above, especially those linked in the article.

Instead, what I strongly suggest is that we stick with wording such as what
is proposed, that is *very* close to the Django code of conduct, which has
been explicitly called out as effective and useful by many people including
the Ada Initiative. We don't need to invent good words here.

-Chandler
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151013/7be90017/attachment.html>

Am 13.10.2015 um 20:17 schrieb Chandler Carruth via
llvm-dev:
>
> This is a *specific* thing that is called out time and again as important
> to having an effective code of conduct in all of the research I have done
> on the subject. Here is a really good, and fairly canonical source:
>
>
http://adainitiative.org/2014/02/18/howto-design-a-code-of-conduct-for-your-community/
That's an activist site. Also, instructions how to construct a CoC 
according to these activist's ideas.

It's not research. Not on the actual effects of having a CoC.
> This article gives a lot of the core reason why details are often extremely
> important here.
Actually it just claims that these are important. The arguments are 
either nonexistent or known to be invalid:

adainitiative.org wrote:
 >
 > * List specific common behaviors that are not okay
 > * Include detailed directions for reporting violations
 > * Have a defined and documented complaint handling process
 >
 > Without these elements, a code of conduct isn’t worth the electrons
 > used to display it on your computer screen.

Okay, so they claim; let's see what the reasoning is:

 > In fact, a code of conduct that isn’t (or can’t be) enforced is worse
 > than no code of conduct at all: it sends the message that the values
 > in the code of conduct aren’t actually important or respected in your
 > community.

This is patently wrong. It is true that unenforceable bylaws are more 
brittle, but they can work fine for years. Social pressure can be 
entirely enough - spamming, for example, was largely suppressed in the 
Usenet for years until that particular infamous law firm didn't bow back 
in shame but declared that their spamming was actually a "valuable 
service", but it took years and a too-large-to-be-social user group to 
get to that point.

And that's just the case of unenforced bylaws. An informal enforcement 
process can work as well.

Also, remember that their recommendations are in no way safer than any 
alternative. Any community can break, Codes of Conduct or not.
My main worry is that a CoC detailed in that way is going to look 
attractive to the lawyer types.
Also, I know of several occasions where codes of conduct implemented in 
this fashion were instantly abused (false accusations, free reign to 
"mind police" types). Several congresses in Germany had that problem.

Am 13.10.2015 um 20:17 schrieb Chandler Carruth via
llvm-dev:
> Now, I understand that for many of you (in fact, I suspect for the
> overwhelming majority of you!) these details aren't necessary. As I
have
> said before, the LLVM community has been very effectively keeping its
> forums civil and polite for a long time. But I think we should consider
> that having a code of conduct and having it be detailed might be important
> for *others*.
Yes it might.
What are the numbers? How many aren't actually interested in joining 
LLVM, but just activists?
Not that I'm saying that activism is wrong, I'm just not interested in 
making a community fit their goals - it's generally not a good idea to 
let non-members of a group set the rules for a group. I listen to them 
because a sprinkle of outsider perspective can help break up if a group 
has become self-centered, but I'd be cherry-picking.
> People who have serious concerns about participating safely in a community
> should have some way to be reassured about what is expected within our
> community. A detailed and documented code of conduct is the best way I know
> of to advertise that this is a safe and welcoming space. This isn't
just a
> hypothetical either. I personally struggled to feel safe within the LLVM
> community many years ago, and I have had many people specifically call out
> how excited they are to see even a *chance* that the LLVM community will
> explicitly take a stance here.
How many?
How many of these are potential users or contributors of LLVM?
How many of these people are suffering from the "imposter syndrome"? A
CoC won't really help them, even if they say so, they will still feel 
insecure. (I know that syndrome from personal experience, though not for 
every kind of topic.)
Is the kind of detail necessary to reassure them, or could one draw up a 
less detailed/Draconian CoC that would reassure not just those people 
you know, but also the participants here? (It seems that the language in 
the CoC has triggered a lot of anxiety; reasonable or not, triggering 
that much unintended anxiety is a clear sign of miscommunication.)
> Another (smaller) benefit that a detailed code of conduct can provide is a
> reminder. While I try to behave to the best of my abilities, sometimes I
> have needed a reminder to cool down a bit. I suspect others have had
> similar experiences. Having some details can help us consider things that
> we might not usually consider on a day-to-day basis.
Yes, but again I think it's too detailed.
In particular, those things about racism and violence are so far on the 
dark side that these will be evicted, no pardon given, with or without a 
Code of Conduct. It's simply unnecessary to enumerate all the extreme 
cases if you define a minimum requirement - "be civil" would already 
exlude the whole list without the need to do a lengthy enumeration.
> So I am very strongly in favor of a reasonable amount of clear and detailed
> wording. We could try to word smith a slightly more compact version, but I
> think that we would have very minimal improvements without sacrificing the
> goals above, especially those linked in the article.
Don't take the advice of activists as gospel, however noble their goals 
are (and yes I think their goals are noble, I just question the 
practicality of their advice for setting up a CoC).
> Instead, what I strongly suggest is that we stick with wording such as what
> is proposed, that is *very* close to the Django code of conduct, which has
> been explicitly called out as effective and useful by many people including
> the Ada Initiative. We don't need to invent good words here.
I do not think their recipes are going to achieve what they claim they 
do, and think that they come with a large cost in the form of side 
effects. I think it is possible to do much, much better.
Just don't look at activist sites for good wordings. Look at established 
projects with a long-term record of civil interaction and see how they 
manage.

Actually I'm not yet convinced that LLVM really needs a CoC. If people 
have been reluctant to join, I'm really, really sure it's not due to 
lack of CoC or enforcement; it's just what people say, but you really 
need to give them ways to get their toes wet without embarrasing 
themselves too much - participate in GSoC, mark problems as "easy to 
fix", set up a queue for incoming patches and make that process 
transparent (the latter one is really hard, I have up on contributing to 
Guava because the Guava team's decisionmaking is entirely inside of 
Google) - I don't know how much of this is already happening in LLVM 
because obviously I don't need that kind of encouragement, but that's 
what I have seen has worked resp. has not worked.

Also, being welcoming isn't necessary high on the priority list. LLVM is 
infrastructure, and you need a different mindest. I was just made aware 
of this posting:
https://plus.google.com/+KristianK%C3%B6hntopp/posts/9ZL862AgjqE
He's exaggerating, but he does bring the point home that projects should 
not necessarily welcome everybody. So... what people does LLVM want to 
feel welcome, and what kind of people does LLVM want to look 
unattractive for?

Let me skip most of the CoC comments which I largely agree with, both in
terms of the proposed CoC and the need for having one in first place.

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 09:38:57PM +0200, Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev
wrote:
> Actually I'm not yet convinced that LLVM really needs a CoC. If people
have
> been reluctant to join, I'm really, really sure it's not due to
lack of CoC
> or enforcement; it's just what people say, but you really need to give
them
> ways to get their toes wet without embarrasing themselves too much -
> participate in GSoC, mark problems as "easy to fix", set up a
queue for
> incoming patches and make that process transparent (the latter one is
really
> hard, I have up on contributing to Guava because the Guava team's
> decisionmaking is entirely inside of Google) - I don't know how much of
this
> is already happening in LLVM because obviously I don't need that kind
of
> encouragement, but that's what I have seen has worked resp. has not
worked.
I think this goes much more to the heart of community interaction than
the CoC did. Things like seemingly ignored contributions and bug reports
are IMO far more damaging and off-putting for newcomers.
> Also, being welcoming isn't necessary high on the priority list. LLVM
is
> infrastructure, and you need a different mindest. I was just made aware of
> this posting:
> https://plus.google.com/+KristianK%C3%B6hntopp/posts/9ZL862AgjqE
> He's exaggerating, but he does bring the point home that projects
should not
> necessarily welcome everybody. So... what people does LLVM want to feel
> welcome, and what kind of people does LLVM want to look unattractive for?
I don't exactly agree with that post, but it highlights one important
aspect for any person not used to the LLVM community. "We welcome
contributions, but we also require contributors to work with us."
Consider me a privileged white male, but I don't see the problems
justifying (!) the introduction a CoC compared to all the other relevant
social issues that are more important in my perception.

Joerg

Joachim, I think we pretty strongly disagree here.

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:39 PM Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Am 13.10.2015 um 20:17 schrieb Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev:
> >
> > This is a *specific* thing that is called out time and again as
important
> > to having an effective code of conduct in all of the research I have
done
> > on the subject. Here is a really good, and fairly canonical source:
> >
> >
>
http://adainitiative.org/2014/02/18/howto-design-a-code-of-conduct-for-your-community/
>
> That's an activist site. Also, instructions how to construct a CoC
> according to these activist's ideas.
>
I don't entirely agree (they enumerate on their site all of the things they
work on). But they certainly are advocating strongly, for example:
"we encourage you to continue supporting women in open technology and
culture by continuing and building on the Ada Initiative’s work"

I agree with this goal, and I am suggesting that the LLVM community has
long operated in a way that strives towards it, and we can do so even
better through a formal code of conduct.

I think that this makes them an excellent resource on how to most
effectively pursue this goal (and related goals).

It's not research. Not on the actual effects of having a
CoC.
>
Reading these and other resources is the research I did. I'm not claiming
it is statistically significant or contains unassailable data. I do think
it offers useful and relevant guidance for the community.

Am 13.10.2015 um 20:17 schrieb Chandler Carruth via
llvm-dev:
> > Now, I understand that for many of you (in fact, I suspect for the
> > overwhelming majority of you!) these details aren't necessary. As
I have
> > said before, the LLVM community has been very effectively keeping its
> > forums civil and polite for a long time. But I think we should
consider
> > that having a code of conduct and having it be detailed might be
> important
> > for *others*.
>
> Yes it might.
> What are the numbers?

One is one too many. The number is more than one.
> People who have serious concerns about participating safely in a community
> > should have some way to be reassured about what is expected within our
> > community. A detailed and documented code of conduct is the best way I
> know
> > of to advertise that this is a safe and welcoming space. This
isn't just
> a
> > hypothetical either. I personally struggled to feel safe within the
LLVM
> > community many years ago, and I have had many people specifically call
> out
> > how excited they are to see even a *chance* that the LLVM community
will
> > explicitly take a stance here.
>
> How many?
>
More than one. The numbers don't matter. This is the right thing to do.
> Another (smaller) benefit that a detailed code of conduct can provide is a
> > reminder. While I try to behave to the best of my abilities, sometimes
I
> > have needed a reminder to cool down a bit. I suspect others have had
> > similar experiences. Having some details can help us consider things
that
> > we might not usually consider on a day-to-day basis.
>
> Yes, but again I think it's too detailed.
>
We disagree. Restating your position won't really move this discussion
forward. Thank you for stating your position, but I think the community can
and should move forward.

Actually I'm not yet convinced that LLVM really needs a CoC.


Many, many people within the community are, and so it does not seem useful
to debate this.

Also, being welcoming isn't necessary high on the priority list.


Being welcoming *is* high on our priority list.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151013/00aeb7b0/attachment.html>